It is evident, therefore, from the range of possible definitions of adelphos, that Jesus' "brothers" need not necessarily be siblings of Jesus on linguistic grounds, as many commentators, learned and unlearned, seem to assume uncritically. By examining the use of adelphos and related words in Hebrew, and by comparing Scripture with Scripture ("exegesis"), one can determine the most sensible explanation of all the biblical data taken collectively. Many examples prove that adelphos has a very wide variety of meanings:

* In the King James Version, Jacob is called the "brother" of his Uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15; 29:10). The same thing occurs with regard to Lot and Abraham (Gen. 14:14 / 11:26-27). The Revised Standard Version uses "kinsman" at 29:15 and 14:14.

* Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic has a word for cousin. Although the New Testament was written in Greek, which does have such a word, the literal rendering of the Hebrew word ach, which was used by the first disciples and Jesus, is indeed adelphos, the literal equivalent of the English "brother." But even in English, brother has multiple meanings as well.

Moving on to more direct biblical evidences of the perpetual virginity of Mary, we discover the following facts:

* In Luke 2:41-51: the story of Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to the Temple at the age of twelve, it is fairly obvious that Jesus is the only child. Since everyone agrees he was the first child of Mary, if there were up to five or more siblings, as some maintain (arguing, for example, from Matthew 13:55), they were nowhere to be found at this time. This passage alone furnishes a strong argument for the implausibility of the "literal brothers" theory.

* Jesus Himself uses brethren in the larger sense. In Matthew 23:8 He calls the "crowds" and His "disciples" (23:1) "brethren." In other words, they are each other's "brothers" (that is, the brotherhood of Christians). In Matthew 12:49-50 he calls his disciples and all who do the will of his Father "my brothers."

* By comparing Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, we find that James and Joseph -- mentioned in Matthew 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus' "brothers" -- are also called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Matthew 27:61, 28:1) is called Our Lady's adelphe in John 19:25 (it isn't likely that there were two women named "Mary" in one family -- thus even this usage apparently means "cousin" or more distant relative). Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and "sisters" along with James and Joseph, calling all adelphoi. Since we know for sure that at least James and Joseph are not Jesus' blood brothers, the most likely interpretation of Matthew 13:55 is that all these "brothers" are cousins, according to the linguistic conventions discussed above. At the very least, the term brother is not determinative in and of itself.

* Firstborn: the use of this term to assert that Mary had "second-borns" and "third-borns" proves nothing, since the primary meaning of the Greek prototokos is "pre-eminent". To illustrate: David is described by God as the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth (Ps. 89:27). Likewise, God refers to Ephraim (Jeremiah 31:9) and the nation Israel (Exod. 4:22) as "my firstborn." Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation" in Colossians 1:15, meaning, according to all reputable Greek lexicons, that he was pre-eminent over creation, that is, the Creator. The Jewish rabbinical writers even called God the Father Bekorah Shelolam, meaning "firstborn". Similarly, God is called the "first" in Scripture (Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12; cf. Rev. 1:8; 21:6-7). Christians are called "the firstborn" in Hebrews 12:23. Literally speaking, however, among the Jews, the firstborn was ordinarily the child who was first to open the womb (Exod. 13:2), whether there were other children or not. This is probably the meaning of Matthew 1:25, in which case hypothetical younger children of Mary are not implied at all, contrary to the standard present-day Protestant assertions.

* Mary is committed to the care of the Apostle John by Jesus from the Cross (John 19:26-27). Many Protestant interpreters agree with the Catholic view that Jesus likely would not have done this if he had brothers (who would all have been younger than he was). Many Church Fathers held this interpretation, including St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, St. Hilary, St. Jerome, and St. Ambrose, and used it in the defense of Mary's perpetual virginity.

* Catholics believe that Mary's reply to the angel Gabriel's announcement that she would bear the Messiah, at the Annunciation -- "How can this be, since I have no husband?" (Luke 1:34) -- indicates a prior vow of perpetual virginity. St. Augustine, in his work Holy Virginity (4, 4), wrote: "Surely, she would not say, 'How shall this be?' unless she had already vowed herself to God as a virgin . . . If she intended to have intercourse, she wouldn't have asked this question!"

These conclusions are not merely the result of "Catholic bias" and special pleading, as many charge. For example, the prominent Protestant Commentary on the Whole Bible comments on Matthew 13:55:

An exceedingly difficult question here arises: What were these "brethren" and "sisters" to Jesus? Were they, first, His full brothers and sisters? Or, secondly, Were they His step-brothers and step-sisters, children of Joseph by a former marriage? Or, thirdly, were they His cousins, according to a common way of speaking among the Jews respecting persons of collateral descent? On this subject an immense deal has been written, nor are opinions yet by any means agreed . . . In addition to other objections, many of the best interpreters, . . . prefer the third opinion . . . Thus dubiously we prefer to leave this vexed question, encompassed as it is with difficulties. 203

Matthew 1:24-25: "Joseph . . . knew her not until she had borne a son."

This verse has been used as an argument that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus, but the same Protestant source also comments:

The word till does not necessarily imply that they lived on a different footing afterward (as will be evident from the use of the same word in 1 Samuel 15:35; 2 Samuel 6:23; Matthew 12:20); nor does the word firstborn decide the much-disputed question, whether Mary had any children to Joseph after the birth of Christ; for, as Lightfoot says, "The law, in speaking of the firstborn, regarded not whether any were born after or no, but only that none were born before." 204

[204 Ibid., 882; first emphasis added. Romans 8:22, 1 Timothy 4:13, 6:14, and Revelation 2:25 furnish four further examples of a similar meaning of until.]

John Calvin used this very argument to establish the fact of Mary's perpetual virginity, which he believed (based primarily on Scripture alone), as did Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, and many later prominent, theologically conservative, and scholarly Protestants (such as John Wesley). No one had ever denied this doctrine until the late 4th century, when one Helvidius tangled unsuccessfully with St. Jerome. Calvin appealed to St. Jerome in his own commentary on this issue, and the issue of Jesus' supposed blood brothers did not come up again until the last few centuries, in which "higher criticism" has often been employed to question traditional interpretations of the Bible.

4 comments:

The story of Jesus going to the temple actually supports the idea of Jesus having brothers/sisters; If there were no siblings, Mary and Joseph would have immediately known that Jesus was not with them. Furthermore, the fact that they were not mentioned is no indicator whatsoever that they were not there. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The other point I would like to bring up is the fact that Mary was betrothed to be married; there was no vow of virginity. Also note the tense Mary used: "I know not man." The tense used here is present/past tense, not future. If there was a vow in play, Mary would have used the future tense ("...since I will know not man").

There is nothing at all in the story of Jesus going to the Temple at age 12 that supports the belief that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to other children besides Jesus.

First of all, the Holy Family was traveling in a caravan with other families from Nazareth and presumably other nearby towns -- it would be likely for that caravan to include extended family, and it would be natural for Sts. Joseph and Mary to think that their 12-year-old son was with some of their other relatives or friends in the caravan. There is no need for the hypothesis that the caravan included biological children of Joseph and Mary.

Secondly, even if Jesus had biological brothers and sisters, there is no proof that Mary gave birth to them. The Protevangelion from the 2nd century says Mary was the second wife of St. Joseph, who supposedly was a widower when he took Mary into his house, and that St. Joseph had several children by his first, deceased wife. There is much in the Protevangelion that is obviously imaginary, however, so there is no way to tell if that tradition is correct. It is nevertheless significant that there is no tradition anywhere in early Christianity that Mary ever have birth to any other children besides Jesus -- nor is there any trace in the New Testament of such a thing. In the Bible, Mary is never described as the biological mother of anyone besides Jesus.

As for your other point, in fact Mary's words, "I know not man" -- "I do not have sexual relations" -- very likely support the tradition that Mary had consecrated her virginity to God. If there was not some kind of vow in play, why would Mary have wondered at Gabriel's announcement that she would get pregnant? She was then already betrothed to St. Joseph, and she obviously knew that "knowing man" naturally results in pregnancy, so why would she be puzzled at the prospect of her getting pregnant if she knew she was going to be having sexual relations with St Joseph soon? Her words only make sense if she knew she wasn't ever going to have sexual relations with anyone, not even her husband.

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

Dave is basically the reason why I am the knowledgeable and passionate Catholic I am today. When I first decided in college to learn more about my Catholic faith, I read all of the tracts at Catholic Answers ... but then I needed more. I needed to move beyond the basics. Dave was the only one who had what I needed. I poured over his various dialogues and debates and found the answers to even the most obscure questions. His work showed me that there really is an answer to every conceivable question of and objection to the Catholic faith. That was a revelation for me, and it is one I will never forget. My own apologetical style (giving point-by-point rebuttals, relying heavily on Scripture, and being as thorough as possible) is influenced very heavily by his, and to this day I continue to learn and grow a great deal through his work explaining and defending the Catholic faith.

--- Nicholas Hardesty (DRE and apologist, 28 May 2015)

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.

I know you spend countless hours writing about and defending the Church. There may not be any American apologist who puts in more labor than you. You've been a hard-working laborer in the vineyard for a long time.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

--- Richard Olsen (Evangelical Protestant), 26 November 2012.

Dave writes a powerful message out of deep conviction and careful study. I strongly recommend the reading of his books. While not all readers will find it possible to agree with all his conclusions, every reader will gain much insight from reading carefully a well-crafted view that may be different from their own.

--- Jerome Smith (Evangelical Protestant and editor of The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge), 26 May 2015 on LinkedIn.

I think it's really inspirational, Dave, that you pursue your passion and calling in this way, understanding that it's financially difficult, but making it work anyway. You and I don't agree, but I have to respect the choice as opposed to being some sort of corporate sell out that may make decent money but lives without purpose. You can tell your grandkids what you did with your life, whereas some corporate VP will say that he helped drive a quarterly stock price up briefly and who cares? It's cool to see.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).